Monday, August 31, 2015

While this seems like a prime moment for me to engage in the
whimsical rhetoric my writing typically includes, I will spare you from some
bizarre analogy or tangential introduction and instead let you immediately get
to a better piece of rhetoric: Professor Debbie Ernie’s active learning activity
focused on (you guessed it) rhetoric.

Setting: Activity
implemented in multiple sections of same 100-level course; activity takes about
20 minutes in active learning classroom (5 pods with 4 students per pod) but
time varies in traditional classrooms due to prep and transition time for class
sharing (see extended discussion below)

Purpose of the
activity: For the Blugold Seminar in Critical Reading and Writing, we place
a large emphasis on rhetoric as a way for students to transfer knowledge
learned in the seminar to other classes or writing they will do on their chosen
career paths. A good entry point for many students is through advertisements
and social media, examples of rhetoric they come into contact with regularly,
examples that might have more obvious elements of rhetoric. For this activity,
done both in an active learning and traditional classroom, my students were
identifying rhetorical choices made in advertisements. The goal here was to
review concepts we had been discussing in their own words and through their own
analyses of use of the term.

Setup for the
activity + how the activity unfolded in the classroom: This activity would
come toward the beginning of a discussion of the elements of rhetoric, but
after having done some work/reading as an entire class on these elements. This
activity is thus a bit of review/testing student knowledge, as well as a chance
for students to begin to play with these devices themselves. This activity took
place in both an active learning room and traditional classrooms. I will
discuss the procedure for the active learning version. Then, I will discuss the
differences when placed in a traditional space.

Active Learning
Procedure: Before the students arrived, I wrote one element of rhetoric we
had been discussing on each whiteboard (near each pod). We had one extra
whiteboard. On that board, I listed some options –print advertisement, YouTube
video, meme, etc. Once students had taken their respective seats, I discussed
the activity:

As a group, find or create a strong example of use of your board's element.

This example can take any of the forms listed on the extra
board.

Be prepared to share with the class. You will need to define
your element in your own words (review) and explain your example's use of said
element. Why is this a strong example? How is your concept at work here.

Students took time searching and/or creating as a pod-group
using the computers at each pod. I walked around to answer questions and
comment on their finds. All groups sought out several examples and then voted
on the best use of their given element, which I was pleased to see! This is why
I allowed for some wiggle room as far as time. Once each group had made their
final choice (two created something, three found something), we shared. I
displayed images from each pod to all of the other pods and projector screens
as groups discussed.

Traditional Classroom
Comparison: This was a fairly simple but effective use of our technology.
Just how effective this was came into play when attempting similar activities
in my more traditional classrooms. Because of a lack of pods, a more
traditional classroom has certain limitations that lead to needed prep work by
the instructor or students. Some options: I bring magazines into the classroom,
this of course limits options for discovery; students are asked to bring in
advertisements, this is an issue for coordinating group work on this small of
an activity, as well as the issue that many students print in black and white,
which plays into rhetorical concerns; students bring in laptops; or I instruct
students the day-of to make up their own advertisement or meme (could do so with
scratch paper or laptops). Even in making these decisions, the small activity
becomes more complicated. Because I teach several sections, I tried a few
variations. I brought in magazines, a wide variety, but felt students spent
less time analyzing multiple options, and rather just picked one at
almost-random (NOT a goal of this activity). I also asked students to choose
their own advertisements before class, as well as bringing in laptops. With the
choosing of individual ads, students were given assigned elements ahead of
time.

The group work once in the classroom felt limited with the
group search aspect removed. I certainly could not assess their searching and
critical thinking involved in person. We also had to waste some time moving
into groups, no matter the prep chosen, especially in a classroom filled with
rows of desks. While the project got them reviewing rhetoric, and while I would
not necessarily cut it from future classes in more traditional rooms, these
versions certainly presented more challenges. Lastly, sharing could be done one
of two ways –groups coming up to the front to display their ad/meme, or small
groups sharing with another nearby group. Again, a little more finagling
required and time-wasted.

After the activity:
The assessment was tied into the sharing portion of the activity, both the
review and analysis of the use of the concept for each group. Assessing their
work and knowledge was certainly more easily observable in situations where
they were searching while in the room.

Additional comments
from the instructor: On a scale of 1 to 5 (with 5 = high success), I would
rate this activity as a 3-4 for a traditional classroom. It requires more prep
from the teacher and/or students and makes the group aspect and sharing of the
activity less accessible. If I were to rate this in an active learning setting,
however, I would give it a 4-5. This activity runs smoothly in these
classrooms, and is an easy and fun way to utilize our technology.

Monday, August 24, 2015

Tragically, many students come to college with very little
modeling experience. Not modeling in the sense of fashionably wearing retail
clothing or modeling in the sense of painstakingly gluing tiny pieces together
in order to make ostentatious little cars, but modeling in the sense of
deriving mathematical equations to represent real-world phenomenon. Dr. Abra
Brisbin, Department of Mathematics, utilizes an active learning teaching
technique called “information search” to get her students to interact with
models in a meaningful way.

Setup for the
activity: Students were assigned to read two papers ("Just modeling
through: A rough guide to modeling" by Michael Pidd and "It's the
findings, stupid, not the assumptions" by Stephen Shugan) and write
answers to three questions about the papers before class.

How the activity unfolded
in the classroom: I assigned each group one of the first 5 principles of
modeling discussed in Pidd's paper. They discussed their assigned principle
within their pod, and used the whiteboards to write answers to the following
questions: What does this principle mean? Why is it important? Give an example
of applying the principle. While discussing within their pods, several groups
used the computers at each table to bring up a copy of the paper to refer to.

After about 15 minutes, I asked a member of each group to
explain their answers to the rest of the class. I solicited discussion on
connections between the principles and students' prior knowledge by asking,
"Did any of the principles surprise you?" and "How could this
principle apply to the model of the wolf population we worked on last
week?"

After the activity:
The presentation by students and discussion were part of the activity. On a
subsequent homework problem, students were asked to build a model of the number
of restaurants in the United States, and write a paragraph describing how their
model-building process illustrated a principle of modeling.

Additional comments
from the instructor: "I was pleased that this activity got students to
think about the broader context of modeling, in contrast to the specific
mathematical tools for modeling that are the focus of most of the course. In
the future, I would like to spend more time discussing the Shugan paper (most
of the time was spent discussing the Pidd paper), and integrate additional
questions throughout the term to call students' attention back to this
activity."

Monday, August 17, 2015

Attention is a limited resource and one
that must be established, directed, and maintained. Dr. Anne Hlas, Department
of Languages, provides strategies on how to structure your class to get the
most out of student’s attentional resources:

The first 10 minutes
of the class is the most attention rich time for students. When we are passing
back papers or going over logistics the beginning of class, it’s not as
effective as if we were to use that time to target new material. Last semester,
my student researcher, a colleague, and I conducted research on attention where
274 students—from all different levels of Spanish—were given clickers so they
could self-report when they were having an attention lapse. In addition to learning that students were
paying more attention the first 10 minutes of class, our findings also
suggested that more active learning techniques, such as cold calling (randomly
calling on students), interactive speaking tasks, and working on individual
white boards, may also increase attention.

For more information on this subject, consider checking out
the book Brain Rules, by John Medina.

Monday, August 10, 2015

I’ve never been a man to go for a lottery ticket. Perhaps I
was dissuaded by an old economics professor of mine who asserted that the odds
of you winning were only marginally increased by actually owning a ticket: that is to say, the odds of you purchasing the
winning ticket are only fractionally better than the odds of the winning ticket
spontaneously blowing into your hand as you munch on your afternoon sandwich. Perhaps
a bit of hyperbole, but it sticks with you.

While IF-AT tests have all the appearances of a lottery
ticket, their chances of generating a winner are substantially better. In fact,
the creators of the new testing system would suggest the chances are even
better than traditional multiple-choice tests. IF-AT (Immediate Feedback
Assessment Technique) tests provide students with immediate feedback as they
answer questions, encouraging strategic test-taking and facilitating retention of
material. The test is fundamentally a
giant Scantron with its answers buried under a layer of scratch-off coating.
After reading the question, students will scratch off the box they believe is
correct. If they reveal a star, they can move on; if the space is blank, they
continue to try until they get the right answer.

Example of Team IF-AT Test

The benefits of this approach, according to the company, are
as follows:

Immediate feedback is superior to delayed feedback: students
who answer correctly right away affirm their learning, while students who need
multiple attempts will understand their error as they are taking the test,
ultimately resulting in a better understanding of the material.

Teachers won’t have to waste class time going over tests.

Partial credit can be easily assigned, (i.e. half credit for
a correct second choice) relieving students from the nasty pressure of deciding
between two tough choices.

Scratching makes for a more interesting, interactive test.

If you would like to give this method a try, stop in at CETL
to request your own set!

If you would like to learn more about IF-AT testing, take a
look at their official website here.

Monday, August 3, 2015

The phrase “could not have said it better myself” is one of
those phrases that on the surface appears to be solely complimentary but deep
down often times contains a hidden truth. For instance, I might say after
listening to a lecture on quantum mechanics that I “could not have said it
better myself,” for the very distinct reason that I could not have said
anything at all about quantum mechanics. The world is so dense with knowledge
that we rarely can say anything “better ourselves” except for maybe the
discipline we have specialized in and what we would like for dinner. Dr. Eric
Jamelske, Department of Economics, embraces this truth, and seeks out guest
lecturers for areas in his course that are not his direct specialty.

In the classes that I
teach that are naturally interdisciplinary—like Health Economics or
Environmental Economics—I try to get guest speakers to talk about the
components I know less about. For instance, I will get a chemistry professor to
talk about the science of climate change, or a philosophy professor to talk
about environmental ethics. Being trained public speakers, we can all pool
together resources and give a presentation on any topic, but if you don’t own
it, or are not passionate about it, it’s not as effective as if you were to get
an expert on the material. I’ve had great success reaching out to other faculty
and community speakers to come in and present on special subjects, and it
really enhances the course. I think faculty are very open to the idea and all
you have to do is find the right person for it.